After experiencing an extremely rough patch of seasons manning the undersized Monta Ellis at the 2-guard, the Warriors are already peppering their fan base for a resurgence of the tiny backcourt.

You've already heard the subtle mind-grenades being lobbed into the canals of your consciousness:

The quiet bravado inserted into our ever-expounding claims of how Stephen Curry is among basketball's 7, 5, (oh, what the heck!) 3 most elite pure shooters currently in the game.

The irresistible admission that "we simply can't pass up Bradley Beal if he's still available at the 7th pick."

And now Matt Steinmetz has published an article pointing out that Curry's glass ankle is a legitmate concern, you'd have to limit him to 28-30 minutes at the point position, and his health might best be preserved if - you guessed it - the Warriors thought about moving him to shooting guard:

Matt Steinmetz wrote:One way to sneak in some extra minutes for Curry – and take a little stress off the ankle, too – would be to play him a little more at shooting guard. That’s a little less pounding, not to mention you’re involved in fewer plays and in less traffic at the offensive end.

If deals for Rudy Gay, Andre Iguodala, or Andre Miller don't come to fruition, you are realistically looking at Golden State taking another point guard in the draft. Warriors mouthpieces are already planting the seed. The question is:

I'd be extremely disappointed if we took a PG in the upcoming draft. Especially if the best forward were available or if we can make a trade to be better RIGHT NOW! I understand that Curry is the "rubber-band man" but this time he'll have a whole summer and training camp to heal..hopefully it'll be sturdy enough to get him through the season..and hopefully he'll have enough conditioning to strengthen it.

As for him at SG..I can see that for a few games, but I wouldn't make a habit of it. Give the dude some rest at some point. Trade for some veteran players..we need some leadership and locker room moral boosters!

Well...yeah, but only if he spends as less time as possible at SG. He is a PG, he has the vision, great passing ability, can shot, can go inside...and he has those damn ankles. If he could just stay healthy. This way, they're gonna make him into a shooter, nothing more. They are talking about his great shooting so much, that they are pushing other great things he's capable of under the rug.

So, yeah, we can draft a guard, but I wouldn't be thrilled about that. I want a SF, or some big body, for bench, or a prospect.

Suppose it's draft night, Robinson and MKG are gone in the first 4 picks, Harrison Barnes in a surprise goes 5th or 6th, and Bradley Beal is left on the board. The Warriors take him, all smiles, high-fiving acting like he was their guy all along.

The next day, a tandem of Larry Krueger, Bob Fitzgerald, and Tom Tolbert combine in an attempt to pump you up to the idea of how dangerous and loaded the Warriors backcourt is; they pretend that Beal or Thompson might happily except a bench role and become this team's James Harden, and they endlessly discuss how Beal should have gone 3 or 4 slots higher and how this move gives Golden State nothing but more options.

Are you happy with that scenario?

Curry isn't at the 2, yet the backcourt is still small. You buying it?

Suppose it's draft night, Robinson and MKG are gone in the first 4 picks, Harrison Barnes in a surprise goes 5th or 6th, and Bradley Beal is left on the board. The Warriors take him, all smiles, high-fiving acting like he was their guy all along.

The next day, a tandem of Larry Krueger, Bob Fitzgerald, and Tom Tolbert combine in an attempt to pump you up to the idea of how dangerous and loaded the Warriors backcourt is; they pretend that Beal or Thompson might happily except a bench role and become this team's James Harden, and they endlessly discuss how Beal should have gone 3 or 4 slots higher and how this move gives Golden State nothing but more options.

Are you happy with that scenario?

Curry isn't at the 2, yet the backcourt is still small. You buying it?

It could be upgrade, but it all depends how Klay and Beal would react to the fact that one of them will have to be a bench guy. And I like Rush of the bench at SG, more than I would like to have 2 scorers, cause that's the only part we will be better with those two. And it would still make us vulnerable to opposing teams forwards, cause we would still have two not so good defenders at SF position. And not that huge on offense as well...

So, I wouldn't curse their names for it, cause Beal could turn out to be a great player, has a potential...(even though it might cost us Klay), but it wouldn't be what I had in mind exactly.

Suppose it's draft night, Robinson and MKG are gone in the first 4 picks, Harrison Barnes in a surprise goes 5th or 6th, and Bradley Beal is left on the board. The Warriors take him, all smiles, high-fiving acting like he was their guy all along.

The next day, a tandem of Larry Krueger, Bob Fitzgerald, and Tom Tolbert combine in an attempt to pump you up to the idea of how dangerous and loaded the Warriors backcourt is; they pretend that Beal or Thompson might happily except a bench role and become this team's James Harden, and they endlessly discuss how Beal should have gone 3 or 4 slots higher and how this move gives Golden State nothing but more options.

Are you happy with that scenario?

Curry isn't at the 2, yet the backcourt is still small. You buying it?

It could be upgrade, but it all depends how Klay and Beal would react to the fact that one of them will have to be a bench guy. And I like Rush of the bench at SG, more than I would like to have 2 scorers, cause that's the only part we will be better with those two. And it would still make us vulnerable to opposing teams forwards, cause we would still have two not so good defenders at SF position. And not that huge on offense as well...

So, I wouldn't curse their names for it, cause Beal could turn out to be a great player, has a potential...(even though it might cost us Klay), but it wouldn't be what I had in mind exactly.

I still think it's the worse choice out of all the options..but that's just me. I'm thinking we have a shot, still, at trading the 7th pick and fillers for an already established player. I wouldn't be sold if we picked up Beal..the FO can praise all they want, it isn't going to make the team better right away. Klay is the man to start, he's already proven he can score. Take an SF, trade the pick, or bust (at least for another year).

Suppose it's draft night, Robinson and MKG are gone in the first 4 picks, Harrison Barnes in a surprise goes 5th or 6th, and Bradley Beal is left on the board. The Warriors take him, all smiles, high-fiving acting like he was their guy all along.

The next day, a tandem of Larry Krueger, Bob Fitzgerald, and Tom Tolbert combine in an attempt to pump you up to the idea of how dangerous and loaded the Warriors backcourt is; they pretend that Beal or Thompson might happily except a bench role and become this team's James Harden, and they endlessly discuss how Beal should have gone 3 or 4 slots higher and how this move gives Golden State nothing but more options.

Are you happy with that scenario?

Curry isn't at the 2, yet the backcourt is still small. You buying it?

It could be upgrade, but it all depends how Klay and Beal would react to the fact that one of them will have to be a bench guy. And I like Rush of the bench at SG, more than I would like to have 2 scorers, cause that's the only part we will be better with those two. And it would still make us vulnerable to opposing teams forwards, cause we would still have two not so good defenders at SF position. And not that huge on offense as well...

So, I wouldn't curse their names for it, cause Beal could turn out to be a great player, has a potential...(even though it might cost us Klay), but it wouldn't be what I had in mind exactly.

But, come on.

They'll sell the fans on a 6th man, but isn't it an eventuality until we see Beal playing the 2 and Klay pushed up to the 3? If that's the future of the team?

(I realize this is all wild speculation, but let's roll with it)

We saw that sort of garbage earlier this past season: Curry, Ellis, and Thompson all on the floor together. Offensively sexy? No doubt. But how'd it chalk up in the win column?

Suppose it's draft night, Robinson and MKG are gone in the first 4 picks, Harrison Barnes in a surprise goes 5th or 6th, and Bradley Beal is left on the board. The Warriors take him, all smiles, high-fiving acting like he was their guy all along.

The next day, a tandem of Larry Krueger, Bob Fitzgerald, and Tom Tolbert combine in an attempt to pump you up to the idea of how dangerous and loaded the Warriors backcourt is; they pretend that Beal or Thompson might happily except a bench role and become this team's James Harden, and they endlessly discuss how Beal should have gone 3 or 4 slots higher and how this move gives Golden State nothing but more options.

Are you happy with that scenario?

Curry isn't at the 2, yet the backcourt is still small. You buying it?

It could be upgrade, but it all depends how Klay and Beal would react to the fact that one of them will have to be a bench guy. And I like Rush of the bench at SG, more than I would like to have 2 scorers, cause that's the only part we will be better with those two. And it would still make us vulnerable to opposing teams forwards, cause we would still have two not so good defenders at SF position. And not that huge on offense as well...

So, I wouldn't curse their names for it, cause Beal could turn out to be a great player, has a potential...(even though it might cost us Klay), but it wouldn't be what I had in mind exactly.

But, come on.

They'll sell the fans on a 6th man, but isn't it an eventuality until we see Beal playing the 2 and Klay pushed up to the 3? If that's the future of the team?

(I realize this is all wild speculation, but let's roll with it)

We saw that sort of garbage earlier this past season: Curry, Ellis, and Thompson all on the floor together. Offensively sexy? No doubt. But how'd it chalk up in the win column?

I don't remember seeing a whole lot of that? ... I remember some cases where they were on at the same time, but not for very long. Most of the time Curry was hobbling around with his ankle, and while Monta was here, Klay was coming off the bench to give him a breather. So... I have no idea if that would work or not... but I would rather see them draft a SF or trade for one, and leave Klay at SG. I don't think he matches up well against other SFs.

If beal was the best player left on the board I would much rather have him over then Terrance or Perry Jones or Jared Sullinger but if theres drummond availible or maybe Henson i would see it as an equal fit. Worst comes to worst Beal is an asset on draft night in a deal for an igudala or josh smith and if we he keep him we hold on to a player who possibly could become a excellent volume scorer and contributer along the comparisions of hopefully an Eric Gordon type. At #7 though if a potential franchise big man comes in like Drummond who can be mentored by consumate pros such as Dlee and Bogut are i think thats too sweet of a deal to pass up to obtain a small and still defenisivly challenged backcourt.

migya wrote:If this new ownership ad FO want to be taken seriously as different from the garbage running the place of the past two decades, such a move will not be made, even considered really.

With the #7 pick, there will be one of the following players at least - Drummond, Robinson, Barnes or Sullinger. Either of those would fit in better and fill a need more than any guard.

Definatley not sold on sullinger, theres a definite drop off from those 3 to him and i just think beal is a better player. Sully is an NBA 4 who is undersized, too similar to David Lee and doesnt project to be a good NBA defender. Just not a good fit here I dont think

migya wrote:If this new ownership ad FO want to be taken seriously as different from the garbage running the place of the past two decades, such a move will not be made, even considered really.

With the #7 pick, there will be one of the following players at least - Drummond, Robinson, Barnes or Sullinger. Either of those would fit in better and fill a need more than any guard.

Definatley not sold on sullinger, theres a definite drop off from those 3 to him and i just think beal is a better player. Sully is an NBA 4 who is undersized, too similar to David Lee and doesnt project to be a good NBA defender. Just not a good fit here I dont think

But Sullinger will contribute solidly in what he does, score a bit, rebound quite well and defend pretty good. He would fill a need, at least for a while. Beal would just clog the backcourt and get in the way of Klay.

NOW IF, the team could organise a draft, better even if it was pulled off before the draft, for a very good SF, maybe even a trade for a superstar, and it included Klay, then Beal would be the option above all else. Only then would that be the case.